Memorial Day History
#1
Posted 29 April 2004 - 05:23 PM
What's your trick for remembering the Magna Carta was sealed in 1215?
DSSW,
WWW™
#2
Posted 29 April 2004 - 05:26 PM
"Love is blind but lust likes lacy panties" -- SanDiegoCarol
"If you're gonna be dumb, you'd better be tough." -- Phillip Manor
"If I know the answer I'll tell you the answer, and if I don't I'll just respond cleverly." -- Donald Rumsfeld
#3
Posted 29 April 2004 - 06:02 PM
1 document, 2 words, 5 letters each?
Actually, the Magna Carta included 63 demands. They were presented to King John on Monday, June 15. John agreed to 62 of them. They compromised on the 63rd (it concerned the King's right to tax London). On Friday, June 19, 1215 King John affixed his seal to the document.
The importance of the Magna Carta in the establishment of modern rights is usually overstated. It contained just gems as women could no longer bring prosecutions against defendants except for the offence of murdering their husbands.
Of the 63 provisions of the Magna Carta only 3 have any bearing in modern law. One clause stated the King could not levy taxes without the consent of the Great Council of the realm (later to become the House of Lords). There were three exceptions to this prohibition. This is often seen as the first step toward no taxation without representation, but it's a big stretch. The requirement that judgement of one's peers for conviction is often seen as the right to a trial by jury, but juries were unknown in 1215. The concept of conviction by one's peers is actually alien to us today, although we still use similar language. The concept implies distinct social classes - nobles, commoners and villeins (a intermediate stage between the abolition of serfdom and the granting of freedman status to all English {the concept of British was 400 years in the future} subjects). Until 1948, British nobles could be tried by the House of Lords for some offences. Finally, the concept that no one could be convicted without due process of law was established. It's the only one of the 63 provisions of the Magna Carta that comes down to us meaning what it did in 1215 (although that process has changed dramatically). It's interesting to note that the Magna Carta, while it did have due process of law as one of it's 63 provisions, didn't establish it as part of English law. King John had established that principle about a month before the Magna Carta was presented to him.
TMI?
DSSW,
WWW™
#4
Posted 29 April 2004 - 08:33 PM
Not for me!! My favorite clause was the one freeing LLwelyn's son..... ( actually the Welsh prisoners)1 document, 2 words, 5 letters each?
Actually, the Magna Carta included 63 demands. They were presented to King John on Monday, June 15. John agreed to 62 of them. They compromised on the 63rd (it concerned the King's right to tax London). On Friday, June 19, 1215 King John affixed his seal to the document.
The importance of the Magna Carta in the establishment of modern rights is usually overstated. It contained just gems as women could no longer bring prosecutions against defendants except for the offence of murdering their husbands.
Of the 63 provisions of the Magna Carta only 3 have any bearing in modern law. One clause stated the King could not levy taxes without the consent of the Great Council of the realm (later to become the House of Lords). There were three exceptions to this prohibition. This is often seen as the first step toward no taxation without representation, but it's a big stretch. The requirement that judgement of one's peers for conviction is often seen as the right to a trial by jury, but juries were unknown in 1215. The concept of conviction by one's peers is actually alien to us today, although we still use similar language. The concept implies distinct social classes - nobles, commoners and villeins (a intermediate stage between the abolition of serfdom and the granting of freedman status to all English {the concept of British was 400 years in the future} subjects). Until 1948, British nobles could be tried by the House of Lords for some offences. Finally, the concept that no one could be convicted without due process of law was established. It's the only one of the 63 provisions of the Magna Carta that comes down to us meaning what it did in 1215 (although that process has changed dramatically). It's interesting to note that the Magna Carta, while it did have due process of law as one of it's 63 provisions, didn't establish it as part of English law. King John had established that principle about a month before the Magna Carta was presented to him.
TMI?
IMO, John was a much better king than many others- including his brother Richard. His problem seem to be total paranoia over his barons. His record in regard to the "commons" was much better, i.e. some of the charters that he granted to towns.
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." C. S. Lewis
#5
Posted 29 April 2004 - 08:51 PM
DSSW,
WWW™
#6
Posted 30 April 2004 - 07:27 AM
Keep yours and Marvels # handy.ZD,
What's your trick for remembering the Magna Carta was sealed in 1215?
-ZD
But rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming--"WOW--What a ride!"
#7
Posted 30 April 2004 - 08:19 AM
DSSW,
WWW™
#8
Posted 25 May 2004 - 07:58 AM
Walter,Memorial Day started after the War of Yankee Aggression to remember the war dead. It was once observed on May 30. Now, it's the last Monday in May. It has also been expanded to include remembering the dead from all American Wars.
If I knew how you felt about the South and the Civil War, I would have put something in that drink Friday night.
#9
Posted 25 May 2004 - 08:16 AM
If you knew what I know about that horrible wasteful war, you'd feel the same. Rarely are we taught the truth about those events, even in college.
Walter
DSSW,
WWW™
#10
Posted 25 May 2004 - 08:21 AM
I've studied the Civil War for many years. Another one of my hobbies. Maybe we can discuss after a dive soon...Glen,
If you knew what I know about that horrible wasteful war, you'd feel the same. Rarely are we taught the truth about those events, even in college.
Walter
#11
Posted 25 May 2004 - 08:49 AM
I'd love to be a part of that discussion -- military history is one of my hobbies.I've studied the Civil War for many years. Another one of my hobbies. Maybe we can discuss after a dive soon...Glen,
If you knew what I know about that horrible wasteful war, you'd feel the same. Rarely are we taught the truth about those events, even in college.
Walter
#12
Posted 25 May 2004 - 10:11 AM
DSSW,
WWW™
#13
Posted 25 May 2004 - 11:17 AM
Any civil war is wasteful. Consider that good men on both sides endure horrible conditions. Now factor this by two because the soldiers from both sides are from the same country. It is far more likely that a brother will be taking up arms against a brother. I could go on. This country is still better than some in that the citizens have some level of control as to which politician that they put in office. This system still isn't perfect. It didn't keep the Native Americans from being slaughtered or given blankets from smallpox victims. It didn't keep the Japanese Americans from being interned during WWII. It didn't prevent a General named Sherman from decimating everything in his unit's path. But it did allow the injustice of these things to get out. As much criticism as this country takes, that is one thing that I am proud of. At some point, our dirty laundry becomes public. In many countries, people get killed to keep the "dirty laundry" private.
Also, let's throw in the the fact that the only things that kept the South alive where the homefield advantage and the high caliber of it's military leadership. The only thing that Grant did differently was to not have the arrogance to try to fence with General Lee and his underlings. He knew his advantages (waves of men and materials) and he used them. He knew that sparring with Lee by using strategy and tactics (like Mead tried to do) was a waste of time because Robert E. Lee was a master at it.
But again, all wars have their moments of courage and honor among their military. Conversely, they all have their moments of shame when the savagery of war catches up to people that are mucked down in it. In the end, most war comes down to greed on the part of one or both sides and soldiers dying to defend their country/homeland or try to throw some leader out (think a creature like the German leader in WW2). That always is tragic.
#14
Posted 25 May 2004 - 11:52 AM
It was not a war in which "the soldiers from both sides are from the same country." The soldiers were from two separate countries. One country was illegally destroyed and absorbed by the other.
The soldiers on both sides were largely honorable men who believed in their cause and fought bravely. The polititians, as a group, were not so honorable.
DSSW,
WWW™
#15
Posted 25 May 2004 - 12:04 PM
Sorry to intrude.It's political history, not military history that would be the focus of this discussion.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users